(EXPANDED FROM 12/6/2022)
Peter Grist stated that he tried to make this authorized biography of car designer Virgil Exner “as unbiased as possible” (p. 5). Even so, Visioneer has a family scrapbook quality, replete with childhood photos and purple prose.
We are informed that Exner was “(a)lready a dashing figure at 15” (p. 10). Meanwhile, his son Virgil, Jr. is given his very own chapter titled, “Like Father, Like Son.” This lad’s fine looks are also lauded.
Why do the Exners deserve such fawning attention? Because Virgil was “the last of the great auto-designers of the 20th century,” says the dust jacket (conveniently ignoring the likes of General Motors’ William Mitchell).
It’s not a picture book, but the images are the star
Nestled amidst the vainglory is an interesting — albeit only gingerly critical — take on the first post-war Studebakers, his early Chrysler concept cars, the 1955-57 “Forward Look” Chryslers and the disastrous sci-fi designs of 1961-62. Exner’s post-Chrysler work is also addressed, such as the 1966 Duesenberg and Stutz Blackhawk (go here for further discussion).
Visioneer is an 8.5-by-10-inch hardback book that stretches almost 200 pages and has thick, glossy paper stock. The layout is basic but quite readable. There is a well-balanced mix of text and images, such as photographs, sketches and advertisements in color and black and white.
One of Visioneer’s greatest strengths is showcasing images of design proposals that did not make it into production. These included an initial postwar Studebaker mockup that had a futuristic front end with enclosed headlights (p. 38).
Grist’s timeline of Exner’s career isn’t always accurate
Visioneer’s timeline of Exner’s career progression can sometimes be a little fuzzy — and even contradictory.
For example, he stated that Exner was promoted to Chrysler’s Director of Styling in October 1953 (p. 72). He supposedly then “had an opportunity to add something to the already engineered models for 1953 and 1954. Most of his effort went into the Dodge and Plymouth models. One-piece front screens and three-piece wraparound rear screens gave an airier, lighter feel to the cars, and integrated rear fenders gave a more modern look” (p. 75).
Basic math would suggest that this sequence of events was impossible. The 1953 models reportedly came out in late 1952, so if Exner had influenced their design, that would been prior to his promotion . . . unless Grist was wrong about it being in late 1953 (p. 72).
More rigorous editing presumably would have clarified the factual confusion. An editor knowledgeable about U.S. automotive history might have also caught the misspelling of Duncan McRae’s name (p. 165).
Exner’s controversial designs are treated gently
As a case in point, Grist acknowledged that the styling of the 1961 Chrysler lineup “took a nosedive.” For example, he noted that the infamous shark-like front end of the Plymouth was originally intended as a rear-end design. The Dodge Dart “fared better” but buyers complained that the oddly placed taillights couldn’t be seen very well so cars were retrofitted with an additional set of lights (p. 116).
Although the 1961 lineup was developed while Exner was recuperating from a heart attack, Grist concluded that he must “take some responsibility” for them (p. 117-118; see quote below). However, the author was much more upbeat about Exner’s aborted 1962 redesign of the automaker’s full-sized cars than they deserved.
For example, he referred to a proposed DeSoto design as “stunning” when it looked bizarre despite curved side glass and “fuselage” side styling (p. 112). The Dodge, Chrysler and Imperial versions had even more elaborate sci-fi flourishes than the controversial 1961 models (auto editor of Consumer Guide, 2020).
Exner offers his take on final days at Chrysler
Grist presented an 11th-hour decision by upper management to shrink the 1962 Plymouth and Dodge mostly through the eyes of Exner. He comes across as a Cassandra who correctly predicted that the cars would not sell well — and that the styling department should not be blamed. “But, almost inevitably, the department was held responsible,” Grist lamented (p. 126). Exner was subsequently fired.
“Ex was livid,” Grist wrote, “having followed company instructions to the letter, he found himself being made the scapegoat” (p. 128). It makes sense that Exner would react that way, but an objective assessment would have acknowledged the weirdness of his basic stylistic direction. That was proven when the Plymouth and Dodge sold much better after they were given hasty reskinnings for 1963.
As discussed here, some Chrysler designers have blamed a lack of time to properly style the downsized 1962 models, but why then did the engineering department have time to make dramatic changes to the mechanical underpinnings?
Grist went on to compare the management styles of Exner and his replacement, Elwood Engel. Exner was presented as more flexible in working with creative people. In contrast, Michael Lamm and David Holls (1996) suggested that Exner was more prescriptive than Engel. Meanwhile, in a sympathetic review of Visioneer, Brandes Elitch (2015) argued that Exner “worked with the designers as his peers, not as an autocrat or bully.” So who’s right?
All in all, Visioneer makes a useful contribution to the historical record. However, there is still plenty of room for an assessment of Exner’s Chrysler years that is more factually detailed and analytically robust.
Virgil Exner, Visioneer
- Peter Grist; 2007
- Veloce Publishing, Dorchester, England
“(Exner) foresaw aircraft design having a powerful influence upon future car design, as automobiles became faster, and streamlining and noise would become ever more important factors. Losing structural irregularities and unwanted projections helped to streamline the automobile. He did not want automobiles to look like airplanes, however, but the aerodynamics behind their design was Exner’s goal.” (pp. 42-43)
“Although Cliff (Voss) was undoubtedly responsible for some of the more bizarre aspects of the 1961 cars, Ex must take some responsibility. Cliff was in constant contact with Ex while he was recuperating from his heart attack, and although Cliff had his own thoughts on how cars should look, Ex’s influence was great. It was hard to imagine anyone but Virgil Exner creating the Imperial head and tail lamps.” (pp. 117-118)
“(Lynn) Townsend was well aware of the stillborn ’62s and who was responsible, and assured Exner that his job was safe. However, mounting pressure from a demoralized dealership network could not be ignored; they were calling for a sacrifice. To make Exner’s situation even more precarious, Townsend disagreed with the direction that Ex was taking with styling. In retrospect, it was unwise for Ex to debut major styling changes on an economy-priced car like the Valiant and then feed that design upward to the higher-priced offerings.” (pp. 127-128)
OTHER REVIEWS:
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2020. “1960s Chrysler Concept Cars.” How Stuff Works. Accessed July 28.
- Elitch, Brandes; 2015. “Book Review: Virgil Exner – Visioneer.” VelocityToday.com. Posted Dec. 15 (link no longer available).
- Lamm, Michael and Dave Holls; 1996. A Century of Automotive Style: 100 Years of American Car Design. Lamm-Morada Publishing Co.
ADVERTISEMENTS & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Chrysler Corp. (1955)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Dodge (1961); Plymouth (1961, 1962, 1963)
This review was originally posted April 27, 2013; expanded on July 31, 2020 and Aug. 13, 2021; updated on Dec. 6, 2022 and June 3, 2025; and expanded on June 2, 2025.
Somehow, I keep thinking why, after designing the Chrysler / Dodge concept cars of the 1950s and the styling improvements between 1955 and 1957, Exner, in my opinion, went stale. Only the 1960 Dodge Dart and the 1960 Chrysler looked really fresh, then 1961 and 1962 happened. What if the 1961 Chrysler had lost its tailfins a year earlier and a featured the rear-end styling of the very clean 1962. What if the 1960 Valiant had been styled like a smaller 1961 Plymouth without the “monster from Tokyo” front end, but something more like the 1962 grill with only two headlamps. If Exner wanted to start with the “S-Class” horizontal brows, the the 1962 Chrysler could have debuted what became the 1963 styling, although I still think it would have not been a “winner”. The 1963-1964 Chryslers looked best as convertibles, but the sedans were just dull and the hardtops not exciting. Why Exner did not see this in 1960 is an answer to a question I guess we will never know.
I have that book! Traveled from the Motor City down to South Bend in the late 2000s to attend a car show and celebration of Studebakers, and Peter was there selling his book. He gave a presentation on Ex in a packed auditorium at Notre Dame that I recall enjoying. One of Jay Leno’s associates was there to get a signed copy of the book to bring back to him. We all got signed copies. Virgil, Jr. was there and made some nice comments during Peter’s talk. I was fortunate to strike up a conversation with Virgil afterward and over the following months he helped me via email with a design that I was working on. All nice people in the hobby, always has been.
Agreed, the book is biased towards Ex. Having never really read an unbiased car book I didn’t think much of it, just enjoyed the passion that Ex brought to the business and the excitement that Peter had for Ex’s work. Maybe Mitchell should have been mentioned among the great designers of the last century, though looking back one can see him borrowing Ex’s designs as with the ’79 Riviera, which has shades of Ex’s ’63 Packard Revival car (rendering). When I get bored looking at Mitchell’s work and that of others, I pull up an image of the ’60 Imperial Lebaron for inspiration and a reminder of unbridled artistry, for better or worse.
I have this book. Perhaps the author gingerly treated Exner’s uneven post-1959 design portfolio because he had to rely on the cooperation of Exner’s son (who, I believe, is still alive today)?
As for the 1962 models – the Plymouth looks the best. The others were marred by strange front ensembles and taillight treatments. I’m guessing, however, that those features could have been easily fixed with a facelift for 1963. Note that Exner was responsible for the facelifted 1963 Dodges and Plymouths, as well as the completely restyled A-bodies – all of which sold well, particularly the A-bodies.
As for the management styles of Exner versus Engel – perhaps that was rooted in how much freedom they were given by top management? Exner had a free hand until the 1962 models…it doesn’t appear that management was watching him too closely. This could have been related to chaos in the executive suite, which culminated in the ouster of William Newberg amid conflict of interest charges.
Engel had a very clear brief from Townsend – get Chrysler styling back into the mainstream, which effectively meant copy what GM was doing. With a clear, simple direction from top management, that could be easily communicated by Engel to the “troops,” it may have been easy for him to not micro-manage his team.
If I remember correctly, didn’t Exner recovered from a heart attack when the 1959, 1960 and 1961 models was developed?
The bizarre look and front end of the 1961 Plymouth was a killer that should never made it beyond the first styling study. In my opinion, it was the worst looking post-war mass-produced car of all time. The 1958 and ’59 Dodges looked pretty neat and the Chrysler 300 line looked sharp through 1960. The XNR concept car was/is a good design. I’ve seen early sketches of the Valiant and it looked very good—much longer than the actual production car.
I love Exner’s Studebakers and Fifties Chryslers but he was ultimately a designer who left no lasting trace. Nobody looks at a 1951 Stude for inspiration for he was an ephemeral designe, chasing fads. In his defense that was what the age required. By coincidence his star fell as Giorgetto Giugiaro began his first steps towards establishing a design template that stills holds sway 60 years later. But the world would be a lot duller without those fins!
Exner didn’t have anything to do with the front of the 1950-51 Studebaker. That was designed by Robert Bourke of Raymond Loewy Associates.
I received the book for a Christmas gift a couple of years ago. Found it to be of good quality with great background information from Virgil’s son.
Had longed wonder of/when a bio would be made.
While on topic, when will we see someone write a proper biography of Elwood Engel. He was in part responsible for the 1961 Lincoln Continental and reskinning the Imperial from 1964 to 1966 erasing the wildness of Virgil Exner s early 60s Mopar luxury liners. Furthermore, the new 65 New Yorkers and other C-Bodies adopted more conventional boxy slab sided bodies which to me compared in better taste than the 65 Galaxies. Elwoods influence is worth an in depth look with research and publishing.